By GEORGE A.

MALCOLM,

Dean of the Col~

of Law, Unive1'sity of the Philippines.

The courts and public officers generally in the Philippines are guided in their
interpretation of the laws by elementary principles to be found in the Codes. * They
will also apply the rules of American statutory construction as set forth in standard
authorities. t Combining these provisions of the Codes with the leading doctrines
established by the Supreme Court of the Philippines and adding a few acceptable
and unimpeachable authorities, a miniature text on Philippine Statutory Construction would read as follows:

Each of the three departments of government and many officials in these departments may be required to pass upon constitutional questions. Only when legal
controversies arise do such issues pass out of the realm of the abstract.
It is, therefore, the peculiar province and obligatory duty of the judiciary under the American
political system to declare laws unconstitutional or invalid (the latter the more appropriate term because of the Philippine status), if they transgress the authority of the
legislature. So in the Philippines the courts will pronounce Acts of the Philippine
Commission and Legislature repugnant to the fundamental law to be invalid and
void. t The effect of invalidity is that the invalid act "is not a law; it confers no
rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal
contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed." The courts
will further apply the well estab~shed rille concerning partial invalidity.
"Where
part of a statute is void as repugnant to the Organic Law, while another part is valid,
the valid portion, if separable from the invalid, may stand and be enfo~ced. But
in order to do this, the valid portion must be so far independent of the invalid portion that it is fair to presume that the Legislature would have enacted it by itself
if they had supposed that they could not constitutionaJly enact the other. Enough
must remain to make a complete, intelligible, and valid statute, which carries out
th& legislative intent. The void provisions must be eliminated without causing
results affecting the 'main purpose of the Act in a manner contrary to the intention

* Especially Arts. 3, 4, 5, 7 of the Civil Code; and Sees. I, 2, 4, 287, 288, 294 of the Code of
Civil Procedure taken from the laws of California.
Also See. 9, Revised Ordinances, City of Manila.
t Cooley, Constitutional Limitations. 7th ed.,Lewis Sutherland Statutory Construction (leading
authority); Black on Interpretation
of Laws; and 36 Cyc. 929 will be found cited in the Philippine
Reports and the opinions of the Attorney-General.
Ocampo . Cabangis (1910) 15PhiE626, 631; U. S.. Ten
(1912) 24 Phil. 1, 10. Possibly
more J?roperly speaking "voidable" because a court can not "repeal" a law. Shepard . Wheeling
(1887) 30 W. Va. 479; Cooley's Constitutional
Limitations, 7th ed., p. 163.
'Norton
. Shelby County (1886) 118 U. S. 425, 442, 30 L. Ed. 178; 6 R. C. L. 117. But see
Burgess, Political Science and Constitutional
Law, Vol. n, pp. 327, 365.

Y"

of the Legislature.

The Iao&ua&e UBedin the invalid part 01 a statute

can have no

Iepl force or efficacy for any purpoee whatever, and, what remains mUllt expft88
the legislative will indepeQdently 01 the void part, more the court hRa no Power to
JeciaIate."
That the Supreme Court of the Philippines like the United States Supreme Court
Wlll exercise the power to nullify statutes cautiously and solemnly is shown by the
few laws held invalid. t Says Judge Cooley: "It must be evident to anyone that
the power to declare a legislative enactment void is one which the judp, COII8Cioua
01 the fallibility of the juman judgment, will shrink from exercising in any cue
where he can conscientiously arid with due regard to duty and official oath decline
the responsibility." t As a pneral rule, courts will not Pl\8S upon a const.itutional
question or decide a statutc/to be invalid unless that question is raised and presented'
and is necessary to a determination of the case; on the other hand, the'fact thai a
statute hns been accepted as valid, and invoked and applied for many years in eases
where its validity was not raised or passed'on, does not prevent II. court from lat.er
passing on its validity whl'l'e that question is properly raised and presented.
Every statute is presumed to be valid. The United States Supreme Court aha
announced time and again that "the courts ought not to declare a law to be unconstitutional, unless it is clearly so. If there is doubt, the expressed will of the
l~ture
should be sustained."
The Supreme Court of these Islands concordantly
has said: "Courts are slow to pronounce :;tatutes invalid or void. The question
of the validity of every statute 1.-; first determined by t.he legislative department
of the government itself, and the courts should resolve every presumption in favor
of its validity.
Courts are not justified in adjudging statutes invalid, in the face of
the conclusion of the legislature, when the question or its validity is at all doubtful."t
Again and more specifically-"In
construing l\ statute enacted by the Philippine
Commission we deem it our duty not to give it a construction which would be repugnant to an Act of Congress, if the language of the statute is fairly suseeptible of another construction not in conflict with the higher law."t
The same line of reasoning was followed when the Philippine courts came to consider ordinances.
"Judicial authority to declare an ordinance unreasonable is l\ power to be cautiously exercised." .
Barrameda . Moir (1913\ ~5 Phil. 44. 47, citing rases.
See Pollock r. Far.mer'. Loan Bnd
Trust Co. (1895) 158 U. S. 601, 63", 39 L. Ed. 1108; 6. R. C. L. 121.
t The United States Supreme Court has annulled Congre ional legislation in but 33 cases.
B. F. Moore, The SUi>~eme Court and Unconstitutional
Legislation, Appendix I. In the Philippines, Casanovas . Hord (1907) 8 Phil. 125 (Act 1189, sec. 134); Omo . Insular Government
(1908) 11 Phil. 67 (Act 648); Weigall . Shuster (1908), 11 Phil. 340 (customs laws); BarramedB
. MOlr, id., (Acts 2041 and 2131); McGirr . Hamilton (1915) 13 O. G. 878 (Act 1627, sec. 16), etc.
: Cooley's Constitutional
Limitations, 7th ed., p. 227.
Read Ch. VII thereof.
McGirr . Hamilton, id., citing Cooley'. Constitutional
Limitations, id., p. 231 and decisions
of the United States Supreme Court; V. S.. Noriega (1915) XIII 0..G ..2154.
See 6 R. C. L. 76.
. Munn . Illinois (1877) 94 U. S. 113, 123,24 L. Ed. 77, followed in U. S.. Grant, 18 Phil.
122, 140. To same effect Fletcher . Peck (1810), 6 Cranch, 87, 128, 3 L. Ed. 162; SinkirilFund
Cases (1879), 99 U. S. 700, 718, 25 L. Ed. 496; Powell . Pennsylvania
(1888), 127 U. 8. 678, 32 L.
Ed. 253; 6 R. C. L. 97.
*t United States . Ten Yu (1912) 24 Phil. 1, 10.
: In rs Guarilla (1913)24 Phil. 37,46 .
1 City of :\Ianila . Manila E. It. and L. Co. (1912), 23 Phil. 547, 551.

APPLICATION OF LAW

Ordinarily the courts merely apply the law to a statement of facts. "The
first and fundamental duty of the courts, in our judgment,. is to apply the law. Construction and interpretation come only after it has been demonstrated that applica. tion is"impossible or inadequate without them." They are the very last "functions
which a court should exercise. The majority of the laws need no interpretation
or construction.
They require only application, and if there were more application
-and less construction, there w()u~d be more stability in the law, and more people
would know what the law is." *
CARDINAL RULE OF CONSTRUCTION

AB above suggested, the (',()urts must in some cases necessarily interpret or construe the law. The one cardinal rule of statutory construction then is to ascertain'
and give an effect 10 tIWintention of the law making body. The Code of Civil Procedure
legislates this into formallaw

by providing Jhat: "In the construction of a statute,

the intention of the legislature * * * "is to be pursued; and when a general and
part~cular provision are inconsistent, tp.~.latter is paramount to the former. So a
particular intent will control a generaLone that is inconsistent with it." t The
Supreme Court of the Philippines indorses the principle by stating that "where the
language of a statute is fairly susceptible of two or more constructions, that construction should be adopted which will most tend to give effect to the manifest intent
of the lawmaker and promote the object for which the statute was enacted, and a
construction should be rejected which would tend to render abortive other provisions
of the statute and to defeat the object which the legislator sought to attain by
its enactment." t Nevertheless the Legislature must use words which in some
way express intent, for a court can not amend the law to make it agree with what it
is believed the Legislature must have. intended.
Practieally speaking, common sense is the best guide for the devious and obscure
path of legislation. Chief Justice Fuller in language followed by ~)UrSupreme 90urt
has said that "nothing is better settled than that statutes should receive a sensible
construction, such as will effectuate the legislative intention, and, if possible. so as
to avoid an unjust or an absurd conclusion." **
SUBSIDIARY PRINCIPLES

Only a few of the more important subsidiary principles of legislation and canons
of construction by which the courts endeavor to ascertain the legislative intent can
be mentioned.

lizArraga HermanOll t. Yap Tico (1913) 24 Phil. 504, 513, followeq in Lambert t. Fox. (1914)
26 Phil. 588 and in Yangeo t. Croasfield (1915) 13 O. G. 191. In accord U. S. t. Fisher (1804)
2 Craneh 358, 2 L. Ed. 304.
t Sec. 288.
United States t. Toribio (1910) 15 Phil. 85, 90; also Uy Chaco Sons t. Collector of Customs
(1913) 24 Phil. 548 and other eases.
, United States t, Ambata (1904) 3 Phil. 327. But compare with U. S. t. Go Chico (19Q9)
14 Phil. 128 and Lamb t. Phipps (1912) 22 Phil. 456, 493.
Lau Ow Bew t. U. S. (1892) 144 U. S. 47, 59, 36 L. Ed. 340; followed in Lamb t. Phipps
(J912) 22 Phil. 456, 493. To same effect, U. S. t. Kirby (1869) 7 Wall. 482, 19 L. Ed. 278, followed
in In ra Allen (1903) 2 Phil. 630.

**

In the interpretation of the Code of Civil Procedure certain words named in ita
section 1 are to have the meaning therein provided "unless the context shows that
another sense was intended."

Moreover,

"words in the present tense include the

future tense,and in the masculine gender include the feminine and neuter genders-;
and words in the plural include the singular, and in the singular include the plUrllJ
number." - But this enumeration does. not require a strict construction of other
general words. "If in the laws months, days, or nights are referred to, it shallbe
understood that the months are of thirty days, the days of twenty-four hours, and the
nights from the setting to the rising of the sun. If the months are indicated by
their names, they shall be computed by their actUAl number of days." t And,
"unless otherwise specially provided, the time within which an act is required by law
to be done shall be computed by excluding the first day and including the last; and
if the last be Sunday or a legal holiday it shall be excluded." t Language used in
8. statute
which has a settled I\Ild well-kno~ meaning, sanctioned by judillial decision, is presumed to be used in that sense by the legislative body.'
A word used
in a statute in a given sense is presumed to be used in the same sense throughout

~he law. -- .Tariff laws are to be construed according to the commercial understanding of the terms used; and such terms are to be taken in t.h;eirordinary and comprehensive meaning unless it can be shown that they have' acquired a special or restricted
meaning. -t Our Supreme Court has been called upon to construe specific words in
a number of other cases. -t It rightly holds to the view that "where language is plain,
subtle refinements which tinge words so as to give them the color of a particular
judicial theory are not only unnecessary but decidedly harmful." -. Chief Justice
Marshall, in t.he histol'ic case of Gibbons t'. Ogden, said: ".As men whose intentions
require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly
express t.he idt'.as they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our
Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed
words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said." 'The Civil Code provides: "Laws are repealed only by other subsequent laws,
and disuse or any custom or practice to the contrary shall not prevail agailist t.heir
observ&llce." --t Express repC<.'\lsare to be encouraged.
Repeals by implicationimplied reE>.a.ls--are not favored.
If the statutes can stand t.ogether consistently,

* The words 80 interpreted. are "person," "writiIlR:," "oath," "of umlound mind," tlbond,"
Hand," "or," "writ," "process," "action/' "pleadings," "dollars," "P(~8," "territory of the United
States."
t Civil Code, art. 7.
: Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 4. See U. S. v. Tiqui (1902) 1 Phil. :106.
Kepner v. U. S. (1904) 195 U. S. 100. 11 Phil. 669 .
- Froehlich & Kuttner v. Collector of Customs (1911) 18 Phil. 461,480.
-t Calder & Co. v. U. S. (1907) 8 Phil. 334. following Elliot v. Swartwout (1830) 10 Pet. 137.
9 L. Ed. 373, and Arthur v. :Morrison (1877) 96 U. S. 108. 24 L. Ed. 704.
-: E. G. Lamb v. Phipps (1912)22 Phil. 456. 492; [II TO Guaritla (1913) 24 Phil. 37; Yangeo
v. Cr088field (1915) 13 O. G. 191. and Ops. Atty. Gen. P. t. index "word. and phr e.
-. YaDlleo v. Cr088field, id.
- (1824) 9 Wheat. 1. 187-189, 6 J. Ed. 23.
**t Art. 5. ,

the later statute should not be considered 88 repealing the earlier one. "It is a most
_ant
violation of the rules of statutory construction to give to a statute a meaning
which, in effect and i~ reality, repeals it altogether, where any other reasonaBle
.,on&truction i8 pOSllible." * "Before a statute can be held to have repealed a prior
statute by implication, it must appear, first, that the two statutes touch the same
aubjectmatter,
and, second, that the later statute is repugtiant to the earlier." t
As an example. of a repeal. by implication, where a later statute providesI' punishmltnt in a different degree from the puni8hment provided in an earlier statute for the
doing or omitting to do a certain act, the legiSlator thereby clearly manifests hiS intention that at least, 80 far as the later statute is inconsiStent with the former statute,
it shall be deemed to repeal such for~r statute by implication. t
The Civil Code in article 3 provides-"Laws

shall not have a retroactive effect

unless otherwise prescribed therein." Our Supreme Court says-"All statutes are
to be conStrued as having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the Legislature to give t.hem a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is
necessarily implied from the language used .. In every case of doubt, the doubt
must be solved against the retrospective effect." However, curative statutes can
.lawfully be enacted. A rll;tification by the Legislature is equivalent to a mandate
to perform an act in the first instance, and will be so considered by the courts. **
A defect in authority may be cured by the subsequent adoption of the Act. *t When
.s curative statute is enacted, a case must be determined on the law as it stands when
judgment is rendered. *t
Whether t.here shall be a strict or liberal construction depends upon the nature
of the Act.. The provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in fact all remedial
laws, are t,o be liberally construed. * Laws regulating citizenship should receive
a bberal construction in favor of the claimant of it. *** As a general rule, in the
interpretation and construction of public grants, such as of titles and franchises,
*Marin . Naci nceno (1911) 19 Phil. 238.
t Caider6n . Dominicans (1914) 12 O. G, 1698. See Iso Uy Chaco Sons . Collector of Cu.tolDs (1913) 24 Phil. 548.
United States . Reyes (1908) 10 Phil. 423.
1 Montilla . Agustinian Corporation (1913) 24 Phil. 220, citing U. S.. American Sugar Co.
(11106)202 U. S. 563; 50 L. Ed. 1149 and other c.es. "The courts uniformly refuse to give to statutes
a retrospective operation, whereby rights previously vested are injuriously affected, unless compelled to do so by language so clear and positive .to leave no room to doubt that such was the
.ntention of the legislature. In U. S.. Heth, 3 Cranch 413, 2 L. Ed. 479, this court said that 'words
ina .tatllte ought not to have a retrospective operation unless they are so clear, strong, and imperative that no other meaning can be annexed to them, or unless the intention of the lcgislature
cannot be otherwise satisfied;' and such is the settled doctrine of this court.
Murray . Gibson,
15 How. 423,14 L. Ed. 755; McEwen . Den, 24 How. 244, 16 L. Ed. 672; Harvey . Tyler, 2 Wall.
347, 17 L. Ed. 871; Sohn . Waterson, 17 Wall. 599, 21 L. Ed. 737; Twenty Per Cent.
Cases (1814)
20 wan. 187,22 L. Ed. 339."-Harlan,
J., in Chew Heong . U. S. (1184) 112 U. S. 536, 559, 28
L. Ed. 770. See Inhabitants
of Goshen . Inhabitants of Stonington (1822) 4 Conn. 209, 10 Am.
Dec. 121.
** Government of the P. I. . Standard Oil Co. (1911) 20 Phil. 30, following U. S. Supremp
Court decisions.
*t Chuoco Tiaco . Forbes (1913) 228 U. S. 549, 57 L. Ed. 960.
*t U. S.. Heins.en (1907) 206 U. S. 370, 51 L. Ed. 1098.
*1 Code of Civil Proeedure, sec. 2; Zamora . Cit), of Manila (1907) 7 Phil. 584.
***Roa . Collector of Customs (1912) 23 Phil. 315,338; Boyd . Thayer (1892) 143 U. S. 135,
36 L. Ed. 103.

IIIIIl!' . UIlllI)4.p. UII;lIIilllL.llllliIllPIiII&;1III4111'4"",,"--

1'IIJLlIIlIIIIl.'WW'Il" ltbii

IIft"I'tON

tW COD8tnlction IlhouWbe ..
..,...-tthe eIaimaI the IOYerIlDleIlt
.rather than of the iDdividuaI.. bte
.JucItIe 8CIary ayll: "nis a lflDeral rule
in the interpretation of all 8tatUteI ~t
or d_iee upon aubjeete or eit ,
not t.o extend their J)I'O"riIiona by iIIlpliat-iolt beyond the elear import .of the
1anKtl8lP!used,or t.o enlarge their operatioD 80 88 to embrace matters not specifieaUy
pointed out, althOUgh standing on a eloee analogy,
Inevery e.-, therefore, of doubt.,
such statutelll are construed most strongly against the government, and in favor of the
subjects or citizens, because burdens are not to be imposed, nor presumed to Ix>
imposed,

beyond

what

the stat.utes

expressly .and clearly

import."

penailltatutes
and statutes in derogation of general rights or uuthorizing
proceedings are generally strictly construed. t
"Courts

must administer

I.ikewiae
summary

the law," said Mr. Just.ice Ladd iuan t'Mly opinion,

"not as they think it ought to be but as they (we) find it and without regard to con-.
sequences."
Where a statute is plain an4 unambiguOIis, I'xpediency or practie.a.l
utility can not be considered.'
"The wisdom or advisability of a particular statute
is not a question for the court.s to determine-that
is a question for the lrgislature
to determine."
So "courts are not justified in measuring their opinion with the
opinion of the legislative department ~f the government,
upon questions of the wisdom, justice. or advisability of

II.

1\8 expret\llC'(iin st:J.tut~,

particular It\w. Al-

though these are the general rules, nevertheless, the court may consider ('ffrets lmd
consequences in proper cases and adopt a construction which willprodu('1' t.he mOtlt
beneficial results.t
The Code of Civil Procedure recoguiZl',s thill fact by providing
that "when a statute
. is equally Ilusr.eptiblc of two intt'rpret.t\tions, onl'
in favor of natural right and the other against it, the former ill to lX' luloptffi." t
Arguments of convenience often address themselves strongly to th, court.
Thl'
physical condition of the country which must of necessity l\ffect the !?pl'mtion of 1\
statute can be considered by a court. An attempt to enforcl' I\n impollSibll'! l\Ilt
will not be countenanced.
And, finally, where a 1(1)1'11.1
interpretation of a stahlt.!'
would thwart the purpose of the legislature or lead to lIobsurrl consequl'nces, the
court is justified in looking through the form to the 1I11bst.u.nr.e;
in lIlIch cascs the spirit .
U. s. -. Aitken (1913) 25 Phil. 7. 22. T~pical instance. Ilivcn in Hall's C ". nn Cnn.titutional Law, p. 833, note.
See Charles River Bridgc . Warrcn Bridge (1837) 11 P"t. 420, 9 I.
Ed. 773.
t U.
Wigglesworth,
2 Story, 369, followed in Froehlich & Kuttner . Collector of Customs
(1911) 18 Phil. 461, 481. T08ame effect are C tle Br08., Wolf & Son8 . McCoy (1912) 21 Phil. 300;
Partington
. Attorney-General,
L. R. 4 H. L. 100; and many American ees.
t Tenorio . Manila Railroad Co. (1912) 22 Phil. 411; Top""io . Paredes (1912) 23 Phil.
238. But not alw~,
U. S.. Go Chico (1909) 14 Phil. 128 quoting from U. A. e. Wiltberl!"r, (1820)
5 Wheat. 76, 5 L. Ed. 37.
, Vel co . Lopez (1903) 1 Phil. 720 .
U. S.. Ten Yu (1912) 24 Phil. I, 10. See aloo Sharpie e. Ml\yor of Philadelphia
(18,;;l)
21 Pa. 147,59 Am. Dec. 759; 6. R. C. L . pp. 104-111.
.t Black on Interpretation of Lawo, pp. 100 ./ q. "In obscuri. inspiei 80lere 'Iuod verioimiliuo est, aut quod plerumque fieri oolet."
Dig. 50, 17, 114.
t Code of Civil Procedure, oee. 294 .
, U. S .. Yap Kin Co. (1912) 22 Phil. 340, followinll :\f:lr.hllll, C .. J., in 11. H. ". Fisher (1804)
2 C~anch 386, 2 L. Ed: 304 .
Gomez . Hip6lito (1903) 2 Phil. 7:l2.

s..

9rreall()n of the law should prevail over the letter. * '''For the letter kill,th but
the spirit giveth life." t This must be taken to be the authoritative view of the
supreme court of the Philippines, for in the case of in re Allen, not.withstanding the
I!tricter doctrine to be found in some other cases, Mr. Justice McDonough, speliking
for the court, held that where a literal int.erpretation of any part of a statut.e would
operate unjustly, or lead to absurd resillts, or is incousistent with the meaning of an
Act as a whole, it should be rejected. In such cases, he said, it must be presumed that
the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid such results. t
Again in the Flag Law Case, Mr. Justice Moreland said that literally hundreds of
cases might be cited to sustain this proposition: "Language is rarely so free from ambiguity as to be incapable of being used in more t~n one sense, and the literal interpretation of a statute may lead to ,an absurdity, or evidently fail to give the real
intent of the legislature. When this is the case; resort is had to the principle that the
spirit of a law controls the letter, so that a thing which is within the intention of a
statute is as much within the statute as if it were within the letter, and a thing which
is within the letter of the statute is not within the statute unless it be within the
intention of the makers, and the statute should be so construed as to advance the
remedy and suppress the mischief contemplated by the framers."
So also "clerical errors or misprints, which, if uncorrected, would render the
statute unmeaning or nonsensical or would defeat or impair its intended operation
* * * will be corrected by the court and the statute read as amended, provided
the true meaning is obvious, and the real meaning of the legislature is apparent on
the face of the whole enactment." **
The English text of Acts of the Philippine Commission and Legislature governs
"except that in obvious cases of ambiguity, omission, or mistake the Spanish
text may be consulted to explain the English text." *t Judicial notice will be taken
of the origin, history, and operation of statutes.
For statutes borrowed from or
modelled upon Anglo-American precedents, a review of their legislative history and
judicial interpretation is proper. *t Statute.'lof American origin should be.construed
according to the jurisprudence of the United States. * Courts will give weight to

* Rector of Holy Trinity Church . U. S. (1892) 143 U. S. 457, 36 L. Ed. 226.

t 2 Corinthians ~, 6, quoted in Carles . State (1909) 3 Okla. Crim. Rep. 73, 86, 104 Pac.
493, a decision of the Supreme Court 0 Oklahoma confessing "to want of respect for precedents
which were found in the rubbish of Noah's Ark, and which have outlived their usefulness, if they
ever had any," and declining to hold the omission of. the word "the" before the words "State of
Oklahoma" In the caption of the information, fatal.
See 5 Op. Atty. Gen. P. I. 609.
tIn Te Allen (1903) 2 Phil. 630, following U. S.. Kirby (1869) 7 Wall. 482, 19 L. Ed. 278,
and Heydenfelt . Daney Gold Mining Co. (1877) 93 U. S. 634, 23 L. Ed. 995. Compare with
Velasco . Lopes (1903) 1 Phil. 720 and U. S.. Ambata (1904) 3 Phil. 327.
U. S.. Go Chico (1909) 14 Phil. 128, 139, quoting from 26 Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law, 602.
See also Uy Chaco Sons . Collector of Customs (1913) 24 Phil. 548.
** Lamb . Phipps (1912) 22 Phil. 456, 493.
*t Act 1788; Zamora . City of Manila (1907) 7 Phil. 584 and other Philippine cases. Similsr
regulation and rule in Louisiona as to English and French.
See Viterbo . Freedlander (188'0
120 U. B. 707, 30 L. Ed. 776 and Louisiana cases.
*tU. B.. De Gusman (1915) 13 O. G.. 1173. Bee also sec ... , .upra.
*iThe rule for the Philippines, U. S.. De Gusman, id.; and for Porto Rico, Dias . Porto
Rico Railway Co. (1914) 21 Porto Rico 73.

the contemporaneous CODSt.'ruCt_ ,..,.

upoIl a statute by the executive officers
whoBe duty it is t.o etlforce it,_
uftleea...eh interpretation ill clearly erroneous,
will ordinarily be controlled thereby.
It is & role well established in the interpretation of custom laws that, wheretbcre bas been & 10nI acquiescence in a regulation

by which t.he righta of parties fOl"years have been detrrmincd and adjusted, such
inteqx-etation should be followed in the absence of the most <'.o,;cnt.and pcnluasivc
lftUIOIUI to t.he contrary, t
Often it is imperative to decide if 1\ lItatuh' ill mandatory or direct.ory. t l\.
statute is said to be mandatory when it requires that ('('rtain action shall be taken
. by those to whom the statute is addrt-JlSed,without. I('avinp; them any choice or dillcret.ion in the matter, or when, in respect to af'tion tnk('n under the statute, there mlplt
be exact and literal compliance with itll terms, or c1llcth(~act done will be ab!lOlutely
void. A statute which directs the manner in which certain action shall be taken
or certain official duties performed is said to be directory when its nature and terms
ate such that disregard or it, or want of literafcomplianc(' with it, though conlllituting
aD irregularity, will not ab!lOlut.elyvitiate the prO(x~tings taken under it.
Such a construction ill, if possible, to be adopted Its will give ('lfect. to 1\1I1)roviBiom of a statute.
Statut.es in pari mnlerUL ar(' to be construl'fltogeth('l'.
"(nt(~rptetare at concordare leges legibus est optimus interJ)f(tandi mO(lus;" that ill, to
interpret and (t.o do it in such a way a.~)to harmonize laws with ItLWtl,is an nndcllt
maxim of the law. *t
By the rule of ejusdem generis when a stntuh~ d('scribell thill~ of a 11lL!til,ular
class or kind accompanied by wordll of a generic (~hal'lLctcl'preceded hy the wonl
"other," the generic word will usually be Iimitl'flto thin~ of a kindred natuw with
tbo8e particularly enumerated, unleSl! there be something in the f'ontext. or histOl'y
of the statute to repel such inference. *t But this rule must. give way if I,ontmry
to the intent appearing from other parts of the luw. *
Punctuation can be re!lOrted to. "The conKtruc.tion finally ndopted shoulr1 hf'
based upon !lOmething more substantial than the mere punetuation found in the
printed Act. If the punctuation of the statut~ gives it a meanin~ which iKrelL.~nahlc
and in apparent accord with the legi>llative will, it may be used a..~an luldit iOIllLI
arguDl('nt for adopting the literal meaning of t.he worelMof the statute UIl thus pUIII'tuated.
But an argument based upon punctuation alone ill not conl'lullive, und the

In re Allen (1903) 2 Phil. 630, following l',mndycr . McC<HlIlauKhLy (lK!") 140 C. H. :11;:1.
33 L. Ed. 363.
t Kuenzle & Streiff . Collector of' Customs (l901'1) 12 Phil. 117 citinll; Ilot .rt.o" r. I>owni!,lI:.
(1888) 127 U. S. 607, 32 L. Ed. 269; U. S .. Healey (11111;')HiO 1". H. 1:11i; 411 I.. (0;,1. :\fl!l: ~lerMLt
. Cameron (1890) 127 U. S. 542. 34 J. Ed. 772.
~ Bee Gardiner . R{,mulo (1914) 26 Phil. );21.
, Black On Jnterpretation
of J.aws, Ch. XIII.
Code of Civil Pr""edure,
see. 287 .
t See Black on Interpretation
of Laws, pp. 341-:14!J.
*t Murp,hy, Morris & Co . Collector of Customs (l!lUll) It Phil. 4r>li, co"sLruinK "Other
~facbillery; , 36 Cyc. 1119; Black on Interpretation
of Laws, pp. 2U:l-2I!J .
, l'. 8. . Santo Nillo (1909) 1:1 Phil. HI.

**

courts will not hesitate to change the punctuation when necessary, to give the Act
the effect intended by the Legislature, disregarding superfluous or incorrect. punct~ation marks, and inserting others when necessary." *
The will of the Legislature can be educed by necessary inference for it is impractic.able to give directions for every detail of application. "That which is implied
in a statute is as much a part of it So'! what is expressed." t Various other intrinsic
and extrinsic aids to interpretation will be adopted by the courts if necessary. t
likewise, presumptions in aid of construction can be indulged in by the courts.
That the rules of interpretation under the civil law are surprisingly similar to
those of the Anglo-American, of which the previous discussion is mainly a compendium, is shown by a quotation from Manresa:
"The following ruleli of interpretation are generally accepted.
Thl;!provisions of the Code or of any other law should not be interpreted
separately. Consequently, the rules established for the interpretation
of contracts may well be applied in the interpretation of the laws. If the
terms of a law are clear and leave no dQubt as to the intention of the legislature the literal sense of its provisions shall be observed. If the words
should appear contrary to the evident intention of the legislature, the
intention shall prevail. In order to judge as to the intention of the legislator, attention must principally be paid to the contemporaneous and
subsequent laws. However general the terms of a law may be, there
should not be understood as included therein thin~s 'and cases different
from those with regard to which the law-makers intended to legislate.
If any provision should admit of different meanings, it should be understood in the sense most suitable to give it effect. The provisions. of a
law shall be interpreted in relation to one another, giving to those that
are doubtful the meaning which may appear from the consideration of all
of them together. Words which may have different meanings shall be
understood in that which may be in accordance with the object of the law.
The usages and customs of the country shall also be taken into consideraration. As has been said in our comment on the preceding article, in
no case should an interpretation which is contrary to the law be given.
So the principle which says that where the same reason exists, there
must be an identical provision of the law, can not be successfully set up
when there is a legal princi:--'~applicable to the case. Where the law does
not distinguish we should not also distinguish. In cases not excepted,
the exception confirms the rule. In the laws where there are exceptions,
interpretation by analogy can not be applied. Where the law grants
the gre.atest, it should be understood as allowing or granting the less;
but if it prohibits the less; it must also be understood as prohibiting the
greatest. In penal laws or in franchises liberal interpretation can not
be allowed, but it may be applied to those laws which are favorable." **

* u.

S.. Hart (1913) 26 Phil. 149, 152.

t Hanchett . Weber, 17 Ill. App. 114. Just as with a constitution-:\lcCullough

(1819) 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. Ed. 579.

t See Black on Interpretation of Laws, Chs. VI, VII.
I See Black id., Ch. IV.
** Manresa, Comentario. al C6di(Jo Civil, Vol. I, p. 74.

. :\bryland